Live the Adventure

Author: R3dragon

April Fools!

Breaking news! Donald Trump, the self-made billionaire and presidential candidate has walked up to the podium in front of millions and millions of people around the globe and announced, “The Emperor has no clothes.”

Now the world is completely aghast.

Most people already recognize who Donald J. Trump is. The brash billionaire made a fortune in real estate, authored many best selling books, and in the early 2000’s became an American reality T.V. sensation for making capitalism cool on national television. Hate it or love it, whether the show aired on Thursdays or Mondays, for several weeks and seasons lots of Americans, in all demographics around the country, including those who rarely watch T.V., much less reality T.V., tuned into NBC once a week to see what task “The Donald” had in-store for his remarkably talented candidates. At the end of the day contestants tried to form alliances and conspire against others before the dreaded “boardroom” though Trump and his associates would masterfully sift through their spin to zero in on who the problem person was and send him or her packing by the end of each episode. Trump’s wisdom defined true ambition in every episode for over a decade and was showered at NBC with ratings gold.

Trump was also a savvy and generous political campaign contributor. An endorsement from Trump was so highly sought after, in fact, that in early 2012 a lesser known primary candidate in a crowded herd (who eventually went on to become the party’s nominee) was quoted, while receiving Trump’s blessing at a press conference, as saying,

“There are some things that you just can’t imagine happening in your life. This is one of them.”

Three years later, some of the usual suspects were at it again and the ‘Club for Growth’ Super Pac thought they could squeeze Trump again for another buck in the name of ‘arbitraged democracy.’ The super pac reportedly solicited Mr. Trump for one million dollars which they would allocate towards smearing the record of whomever they wished in the next campaign cycle. Trump said “No Deal.” But “No” was apparently ‘no bueno.’ Considered a non-answer and typically received as “No” (until we twist your arm, threaten to smear you on T.V., cut ties and disavow you, or just plain strong-arm you) into saying “Yes” later on. You would think the builder of casinos would know that in the end, the house always wins.

Unfortuately, Trump doesn’t smoke peace-pipes or drink cool-aid. So NBC’s chiefs must have been so spooked by Trump, that they determined to hammer Trump into submission targeting Trump’s idiosyncratic weaknesses and electability. The word from the top was to just target optics. If they targeted Trump’s message as well they might be trapped into a sticky situation of educating the public that Trump is right on the money, as usual. If they were going to tame the bucking bronco everyone around the campfire was going to need to agree to wag-the-dog, align with #neverTrump, and chip in to a scorched-earth smear campaign to dump Donald D[Trump]f. Trump had them cornered on the issues, but this would be a battle of optics. NBC needed a compelling standard to which to critique every potential Trumpism by. So the call was made to ratchet up on a worn-out, draconian, zero-tolerance political correctness doctrine that had already sparked criticism from comedians like Jerry Seinfeld, calling it very “creepy,” because they thought PC is killing the laughter. Those who might have bucked at the new marching orders or screw it up royally would need to be asked to get off the bus, less they accidentally derail the whole operation. Because NBC was going to bet the farm on their version of apathetic legalism in order to provide everyone signing up to #stopTrump the cover they needed to go after Trump.

NBC’s ‘shock and awe’ on Trump could be witnessed on Morning Joe the day after Trump announced his candidacy on why “Donald Trump will #never be president”. Their next attack would be after Trump’s tough stance on building a wall between the United States and Mexico, as well as his position on illegal immigration (which the border patrol endorses). PR Wizards used fractions of hour long interviews and massive speeches to form “sound-bite ammo” to launch back at Trump wherever he went. NBC wasn’t going to mince words, people needed to know immediately “Trump, and those like him are no good racists and misogynistic.” Their proof? Over-the-top staged announcements by Univision saying they want to “completely sever ties” and “#dump Trump completely” over what he said. Then fired off another volley by putting the kabash on Trump’s Ms. USA pageant right where it would sting Trump the worst, in the ratings like real true-blue feminists.

These strange unilateral kamikaze maneuvers by NBC were simply based on what hired PR experts believed would work to spook Trump into getting cold feet and split-up and eradicate his support with the voters. In a month, however, the NBC political wizards & sages were flabbergasted by a scary phenomenon emerging in the raw data. Polls revealed despite their #neverTrump sabotage, Americans had enough and were pushing back telling pollsters, “You’re wrong. Trump is for us and we like him.” Trump’s poll numbers surged like a rocket. The wise men reasoned that optics wasn’t the draw, it’s his message of sounding off on the public’s real problems. That was enough for the suits to put on war paint and declare “Code Red” and publically “fire Trump” from NBC, cut all ties, and form a coalition of tribes to put a stop to the angry white man.

One of those recruited was the political mercenary group ‘Club for Growth,’ who still were “hurt” that Donald wouldn’t cough up the dough when they asked for it nicely, but the same people never even cared to reimburse Trump for a ruined carpet when he helped them to fund another loser’s demise. Thus it should be highly suspect that when these “morally questionable” consultants on K-Street decided to follow NBC’s lead to also attack Trump. They piled on hard with an whopping “flood” of negative advertising in Florida which only has pissed off the crock even more.

But it wasn’t just media moguls and professional hatchet men who Trump ‘snubbed’ on his way to the white house; last January before Trump even considered running for POTUS, Republicans apparently really wanted Trump to run for Governor of New York. Just like NBC & CFG, Trump refused them also. Trump’s persistent refusal to give-in has predictably prompted the exact same response from the RNC & DNC, as from the media & super pacs, which can only mean they too have been compromised. With some “conservatives” in Washington DC now handing Trump supporters the blackspot.

NBC, The mainstream media, CFG (and Super Pacs like them), competing candidates, pundits, talk-show hosts on both the right and the left, college professors, as well as Hollywood celebrities really don’t mind a regularly scheduled Donald on T.V., or when he loans them a quarter to play politics in the arcade, but #Trump2016 has compromised their credibility now more than ever. To not support Trump means being forced to defend a more dangerous doctrine than ISIS. And the public buying in to the ploy, are stuck into pledging their support to people who have no concept of reality and are endorsed by literal space cadets, over the master architect of the Art of the Deal.

The press, in serious financial trouble, are choosing to pass up the good scoops in exchange for tabloid gossip in their opinion pages in order to play their readers into thinking Trump is some sort of “huckster extraordinaire who can’t sell himself as smart while acting so dumb.” It’s just too bad that they’ve already “spilled the beans” over two decades ago that Donald J. Trump is simply smarter than the rest of us. Millennials, who were in diapers when Trump published his iconic epitome on deal making, aren’t taught anymore of Trump’s consistent formula for success defined as; “hard work, thorough preparation, detailed knowledge, careful planning, tight organization, strong leadership, dogged persistence, controlled energy, good instincts and the genetic ability to deal.” Because the press refuses to be consistent with what they said in the past which is really, “Mr. Trump makes one believe for a moment in the American dream again.”

We don’t want that, but talking heads on T.V. who are already compromised cannot report on Trump’s New Deal, except for a painfully small minority. That’s because Trump’s fix doesn’t start with policy, it starts with setting up a tent. On the first episode of Season 6 of the Apprentice, Trump completely outsmarted some of most brilliant and famous people by asking them to set up two tents. In that one exercise those brilliant minds collapsed into chaos until two people emerged that could band everyone together and setup those tents. They became “project managers” of an equal two party system that became competitive, capitalistic, and democratic with accountable leaders who had one goal to complete each week or else suffer sleeping in the tent, or worse get fired for not doing their job in the boardroom.

Nobody has been more hurt and more deceived than the people who are basing their opinions on what compromised biased people tell them. Remember #nevertrump is just in a publicity battle with Trump because they feel if he wins, they’ll be dumped by the viewing public. If you feel that everyday on T.V. they’re showing you another car wreck, just remember how you feel when you sit behind all those rubber-neckers on the highway. Trump hurt their feelings a little bit and they’ve decided to go nuclear on him for it.

Credit goes to late night surfing on youtube and landing on the not viewed so much, but informative: “My dutch uncle” John Kostik with his video series Jesus in Genesis. The video above is one of a series he started going over the first sentence in the Bible. I recommend if you’re interested in this sort of thing to take a look at his videos…

In continuing on from the previous post titled, “What Are the Unknown Knowns” I concluded that,

“In re-learning basic concepts of freedom we can exercise that knowledge for our benefit, rather than continually choosing to forget it. Taking a stand on something is not the same as martyrdom, but it takes a similar type of courage to stand up to something you know to be wrong.”

This was based upon my assessment that:

“What is left is a community where the LOUDEST VOICE is allowed to present absurdities, and because they are LOUD and because they are accomplished in their YELLING, they are lauded as “good” by “the institution”.”

Here’s my thought,

In such a progressive-minded society we still have rules governing our society. Which are being regarded more and more like constrictive edges of a paper keeping the proliferating words of the law from running off the page into oblivion. However, in order to grant more freedom of access to those in the margins of our society we have turned the table completely over, re-written the map, and have decided to follow a course of action that ties up our democracy with arguments equivalent to redefining the size of that paper, rather then focus on how these new emerging problems can be resolved in our pre-existing free democracy.

“Eight and a half by eleven or fight!”

Some scary comments I’ve read from the internet are things like,

“Joshua, I think that means you’d need to contemplate the possibility that the country is mentally ill and needs serious psychotherapy.”

“It’s just hard for me to imagine that our dear founding fathers would be like, “yeah cool — keep that bit about the right to bear arms EXACTLY as it is” if they saw the news these days.”

Wait a sec…

Could we, the 21st century “we the people”, write and agree upon a constitution today as the 18th century “We The People” actually did?, and then be so committed to it that we would sacrifice everything to protect it?

And would that constitution continue to serve “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…”?

I’ve heard “yes” and “yes”, but the founding fathers weren’t exactly so sure.

Our forefathers were not philosophical gods, but rational thinking men with big issues to solve like us.

You see, WE DO KNOW what our forefathers thought when they were contemplating the formation of our Union, and what they thought in writing the constitution. We know it, because they told us as much in their letters and individual writings.

What they thought was prolific and hopeful but also riddled with concern over the protection of State’s rights verses National rights.

In their writings;

They considered trade between individual states and trade between states and other countries and what the role of federal government would be if a country had a trade dispute with a state. Or if a state had a trade dispute with another state.

They debated how a uniform system in commercial relations would be necessary to their common interest and their permanent harmony, and the lengths to which the federal government should involve itself;

They wrestled with how to report to the several States such an act, “The Constitution” and whether if this union they formed would unanimously be ratified by the states, or fall short and insight more rebellion.

One the biggest surprises in educating myself about the founding fathers and the constitution was this revealing passage I found in a letter written on September 17, 1787 before the presentation of the constitution to the general public by George Washington,

“It is obviously impracticable in the Federal Government of these States to secure all rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all. Individuals entering into society must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. The magnitude of the sacrifice must depend as well on situation and circumstance, as on the object to be obtained. It is at all times difficult to draw with precision the line between those rights which must be surrendered, and those which may be preserved; and, on the present occasion, this difficulty was increased by a difference among the several States as to their situation, extent, habits, and particular interests.”

I wrestle with this, as I’m sure Washington did. In our present age we are rushing to try and bring opportunity to the disenfranchised or marginalised group, without requiring from them to give up a share of their liberty, but expecting that the government will provide for the interest and safety of all [sic]. And when It doesn’t work, somehow we feel like we have the right to become severely cynical of the process — when the whole time our founding fathers knew all this in advance and decided anyway to setup a system in hopes that “the democratic solution” and time would iron out differences between people.

When Washington states that it is difficult to draw with precision the line between those rights which must be surrendered, and those which may be preserved [sic] there is an point here that in order for this system to work not everyone is going to win what they want. However, they will secure what they need, and perhaps just enough to even thrive.

Is this sacrifice acceptable?

Can we agree on this one point, that perhaps… Perhaps… we can sacrifice and compromise on a few issues in order to preserve the Union from invasion or dissolvement?

Or must we tarry on endlessly, forgoing freedoms we really should protect, gaining some we really didn’t need, all in order to forge a “perfect paradoxical union” in which everyone gets their own cake and eats it too?

Perhaps for the privilege of freedom, we might yield a few inches before we’ve lose miles.

they gain awareness of it and can never go back to a state of ignorance again.

——>—>–>–>—“Ignorance”–>–>—>—->–v

| Cycle of |

| Knowledge |

<–<—–<——“Awareness”——<——<—–<–

Five months after September 11, 2001, the United States Defence Dept. had unconfirmed reports that Iraq might be linked to a cache of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and that perhaps there was a conspiracy to use those WMDs against us.

The U.S. Department of Defence held a press conference to announce the news, however when questioned about the reports lacking any hard evidence Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld replied,

“Reports that say that something hasn’t happened are always interesting to me, because as we know,

there are known knowns;

there are things we know we know.

We also know there are known unknowns;

that is to say we know there are some things we do not know.

But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don’t know we don’t know…”

To summerize,

‘where we are’…………………… O.o? in the cycle of knowledge determines our reaction to it.

But are there such things as “unknown knowns?” and what would our reaction to those be?

Prepared to be dazzled.

Unknown Knowns could fit in to the category of Unknown Unknowns,

if only we say that we are choosing to forget.

However, in the cycle of knowledge: to choose to forget an experience you have had, like it never happened, defies all human logic and reason. < . _ . > “y?”

At times, negative conditions present themselves in which it would be better for one to forget an experience, than to remember it.

Yet, we understand that when we do that, we are being illogical.

Yet, it is precisely the fact that because we are being illogical, that when we are asked if we are “aware” of something we should know, we go further from illogical to irrational deciding whether it is advantageous for us to lie and say that “we are not aware of it,” or take responsibility and tell the truth saying, “We are aware of it”, or we can say and do absolutely nothing.

After several thousand years in our divine wisdom of cycling through knowledge humans have actually just arrived at the beginning of knowledge, perplexed at

what to think,

what to say,

what to do,

and what to believe.

Ok then… While our illogical and irrational behaviour is understandable, it may not be ethical. Illogically, however, one argues that everything in this world is not necessarily contained in one predefined ethical box.

Every box, or “paradigm”,“worldview”, “perception”, “reality”, etc. we have deconstructed.

New boxes, taken from old box designs (which the authors wholeheartedly reject), exist in relative limbo.

…

… – – –

… – – – …

SOS

What is left is a community where the LOUDEST VOICE is allowed to present absurdities, and because they are LOUD and because they are accomplished in their YELLING, they are lauded as “good” by “the institution”.

And because “good” is really just subjective to the institution who employ the LOUD VOICE, and ask the LOUD VOICE for their opinion, the LOUD VOICE becomes protected by the institution against any and all who would try and critique the LOUD VOICE.

This of course is not “good”, not “Evil”, but definitely “bad.”

You see,

“all experience has shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Institution, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” (10 points to you if you know this from somewhere.)

This might be radical thinking, but it is freedom-minded thinking. John Hancock, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Adams, and other likeminded people all thought similarly.

We are supposed to right ourselves by abolishing the forms to which we are accustomed, but we do not because we think these evils aren’t evil (i mean what is evil anyway?), and even if they were evil they are at least sufferable.

But they are not.

not what? a knot? wait naughty? Er. What?

They are not sufferable, because why suffer when one can protest?

The point at which something becomes insufferable is when one person, one person challenges the institution to take action against the LOUD VOICE. If the institution defends the LOUD VOICE without any investigation, when it claims to be free and independent, then it is corrupt.

This is paramount to freedom because without this basic understanding,

a person’s voice,

a person’s opinion,

a person’s vote

is worthless and meaningless.

It is despotism and tyranny.

God’s greatest gift to humanity is our freedom to realise we are in fact free and from that freedom we can create an independent free society of free thinkers

if we want to.

This is something that I KNOW.

I have not forgot it,

this is a known-known and a line in the sand one may call “Truth.”

It has taken me years to get to this conclusion that this is something that I know to be fact, but it seems that others either do not know it, or they used to know it and chose to forget it.

In other words, “freedom-minded thinking” is one of those UNKNOWN KNOWNs.

There is one and only one course of action for unknown knowns such as this…

They must be re-learned into the known-(never-to-be-forgotten)-known category.

In re-learning basic concepts of freedom we can exercise that knowledge for our benefit, rather than continually choosing to forget it. Taking a stand on something is not the same as martyrdom, but it takes a similar type of courage to stand up to something you know to be wrong.

This courage is in all of us,

it is ordained by God,

and through it we gain strength and wisdom. Small problems no longer grow into big problems, ignorance ceases to become stupidity.

This is not complicated, but common-sense regardless of the complexity of one’s situation.

Many years ago, Jim, a young man noted for his physical strength, was challenged by a bully. “I’ll bet ten dollars,” taunted the bully, “that you can’t lift the side of my wagon until the wheel clears the ground.” Jim politely refused the challenge. Many of his friends were disappointed in him.

Sometime later while on his way home, Jim saw one of his friends in need. A wagon wheel was broken, and the man was trying to pry up the wagon with a pole to remove the wheel. Promptly Jim lifted the wagon, and the man easily slipped off the wheel.

“Jim, I don’t understand,” the man said. “A while ago you wouldn’t accept a challenge of strength, and now you use your muscles without being asked.”

Jim replied, “I don’t believe God gave me a strong body just to show off.”

We too should not be tempted by pride. Whatever we have, whether physical strength, good looks, material possessions, pleasing personality, or deep spirituality, it is given us to use to glorify God.

ceremony: Fellows would you like to see what can be your greatest enemy? You can, by looking into this box. (After boys have seen themselves in the mirror say:) Yes, fellows, if we are filled with pride, we ourselves can be our greatest enemy. Now let’s bow our heads, and pray that God will help us not to be “show-offs.”

Doing research and I came up with this quote from my Systematic Theology textbook.

“One may hold the view that power makes truth, so if one is able to assert one’s view and have that assertion go unchallenged, that person should simply go ahead and do so.”

“A more common explanation is that one is simply so unable to escape one’s own perspective as to be incapable of recognising that it is just that, a perspective. In other words, one’s own conditioning (or rearing) is so complete that it shields one from that recognition that one is not working from a neutral viewpoint.”

So then what is the logical solution?

Post-perspectivism:

“Taking seriously the reality of *perspectivism, but going beyond it.”

*That is: biases

But this is only possible to do with oneself… if one is willing to listen to another…

“Any attempt to establish one view as superior to another must either assume some standpoint or neutral perspective, or will ultimately reduce to the current world opinion that POWER establishes TRUTH, which is either force or manipulation.”

So that leaves us with the fact that if we don’t desire to use force, nor manipulation to fight our cause, then our only option is to remain silent and wait until the other person opens up to listen to an alternative view point.